Covid Vaccine

[R. Johnson#3]

Yes.

[Crovash]

I don’t have the link. But someone is tracking long term disability, longevity trends, hospitalization time, work days lost, etc for people who tested positive. I want to say it’s 18-20% (this number may not be correct) of people who show symptoms.

A study out of Oxford University in England on the mental health effects of Covid-19 put it at 20%.

So, according to the study, of those who recover, 1 in 5 have mental health issues after 90 days.

https://www.complex.com/life/2020/11...mental-illness

[spliff(TONE)]

You should follow that advice.

You're so clever and charming.

[Webslinger]

If there were long-term side effects not observable in initial trials prior to public release that made the vaccine less effective (or even not worth taking at all). Plus as the sample size gets larger, more issues could pop up that weren't discovered in smaller sample sizes. That could also work in the other direction too I'd imagine. Only time will tell.

Vaccines have always been safe. But i agree as more ppl take it more data can be collected

correct me if I'm wrong, but the efficacy would increase as more people are vaccinated, would it not?

assuming the vaccine truly is 95% effective then yes, the more ppl who take it should yield even better results.

[dbroncos78087]

correct me if I'm wrong, but the efficacy would increase as more people are vaccinated, would it not?

The efficacy would not change (much). The effectiveness of the vaccine should absolutely go up as more people use it. But that's just because they are two different concepts.

Efficacy is more related to if we give you the vaccine, what are the odds that it will be successful. Will you be immune to COVID after receiving it? The 95% number could change as more people get it. It could be 95% successful +/- some percentage with the trials and the true efficacy could be (for example) 96% that we see when it is given to the population.

But as more people get the vaccine, then it can be more effective in its goal of opening the country back up.

[R. Johnson#3]

Why is a Covid vaccine thread in the politics forum?

[SiteWolf]

Why is a Covid vaccine thread in the politics forum?

There's already one in the general forum, I believe...but there's a political aspect to this, given how many view Operation Warp Speed and all that.

[R. Johnson#3]

There's already one in the general forum, I believe...but there's a political aspect to this, given how many view Operation Warp Speed and all that.

What’s political about a vaccine? Does the Republican version have an extra dose of freedom? Does the democrat version make you a socialist?

[SiteWolf]

What’s political about a vaccine? Does the Republican version have an extra dose of freedom? Does the democrat version make you a socialist?

everything has gotten politicized....some feel it was pushed too fast by Trump, so won't get it when first available to them, others will get it as soon as they can if they're comfortable the FDA and CDC aren't hesitant...there's also some politics on the pecking order of who should get it first...not all politics are strictly along party lines

[rhino17]

What’s political about a vaccine? Does the Republican version have an extra dose of freedom? Does the democrat version make you a socialist?

Some people are just anti-vaxers in general

I think there are Dems that won't take it b/c the rushed process

I think there are Republicans that won't take it if it is administered under the Biden administration that would if it was under Trump

It's political because Americans are dumb people.

As long as legit people like Fauci sign off on it, I will be taking it.

[SiteWolf]

Some people are just anti-vaxers in general

I think there are Dems that won't take it b/c the rushed process

I think there are Republicans that won't take it if it is administered under the Biden administration that would if it was under Trump

It's political because Americans are dumb people.

As long as legit people like Fauci sign off on it, I will be taking it.

what might get weird, too, is....which vaccine? will we run into a situation where the one that becomes available to us isn't the one we've decided, by what we're hearing from the media, is the best?

reminds me...Russia put one out there weeks ago, didn't they? it was so good they didn't want to make any money on it selling it to the rest of Asia and Europe?

[rhino17]

what might get weird, too, is....which vaccine? will we run into a situation where the one that becomes available to us isn't the one we've decided, by what we're hearing from the media, is the best?

reminds me...Russia put one out there weeks ago, didn't they? it was so good they didn't want to make any money on it selling it to the rest of Asia and Europe?

I'm sure that will become an issue too. My dad is a doctor over 65 and is supposed to be getting a vaccine sometime in December. His hospital has not decided which one to focus on. If Trump happens to endorse one over the other, I'm sure he will throw a fit if his hospital chooses the other. He is exactly the type of person that will make it political. I'm sure others will do the opposite.

If they both work, we. should just be focusing on getting either of them out to as many people as possible

[SiteWolf]

I'm sure that will become an issue too. My dad is a doctor over 65 and is supposed to be getting a vaccine sometime in December. His hospital has not decided which one to focus on. If Trump happens to endorse one over the other, I'm sure he will throw a fit if his hospital chooses the other. He is exactly the type of person that will make it political. I'm sure others will do the opposite.

If they both work, we. should just be focusing on getting either of them out to as many people as possible

I don't know how this is working....locally I'd heard they were being sent a particular vaccine but fewer doses than originally promised, but I didn't catch who or how they made the decision, if it was by state, by organization, or what. I'm also not sure who or how the decision's made on the pecking order because there is only recommendations on a federal level that I'm aware.

[catman]

I'm sure that will become an issue too. My dad is a doctor over 65 and is supposed to be getting a vaccine sometime in December. His hospital has not decided which one to focus on. If Trump happens to endorse one over the other, I'm sure he will throw a fit if his hospital chooses the other. He is exactly the type of person that will make it political. I'm sure others will do the opposite.

If they both work, we. should just be focusing on getting either of them out to as many people as possible

I agree with this. If more than 1 vaccine is granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, they should all be distributed. The Military is in charge of getting vaccines to the states and the departments of public health in each state will be in charge of getting the vaccines to the end users. Which vaccine gets to which end user is immaterial to me, as long as they all work properly.

[flips333]

correct me if I'm wrong, but the efficacy would increase as more people are vaccinated, would it not?

If you are talking about a sense of herd immunity then that would effect those who don't take it as well. The efficacy number comes from comparing the group that got the vaccine to the group that didn't. If there is a mass of people who are immune to the virus then there will just be less of a chance for anyone to catch it, and there will be less spread in the non-vaccinated communities.

So if less people in the unvaccinated group are getting the virus the efficacy number should stay about the same. But at that point they will not be doing a study and this number will functionally change to % of people who have the vaccione and havent't gotten the virus (Which is the number I think you are thinking of)